Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the County of Kent (Ashford Division), in the room of William Patrick Spens, Esquire, O.B.E., K.C. (Manor of Northstead)—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

United Nations (Common Programme)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has yet been taken in consultation with the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to prepare a common programme of post-war economic co-operation, so as to carry into effect the objects of the Atlantic Charter, the Lease-Lend Agreement and the Anglo-Russian Agreement?

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether conversations have yet been opened with the other Governments of the United Nations, particularly the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, on the question of economic reconstruction after the war; and, if so, what progress has been made?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to prepare a common programme of post-war economic co-operation in consultation with the Governments named and other Governments of the United Nations, and considerable progress has been made by the Government in the preparatory work required for their part in the formulation of such a programme.

Mr. Kirkwood: Then there is no truth in the rumour that the British and Soviet

Governments are practically at loggerheads?

Mr. Eden: I think I can reassure the hon. Member completely on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI LEADERS (PUNISHMENT)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Goering and other Nazi leaders have bought estates in Sweden and other neutral countries; and whether His Majesty's Government will refuse to agree to their crimes being regarded as political and therefore non-extraditable, so that they cannot follow the example of Kaiser Wilhelm and escape to a neutral country?

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the Question, I have seen reports to this effect. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Sir P. Hurd: Then the matter is receiving further attention?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend explained that we are in communication with other Governments about this very difficult question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the International Labour Office has suffered a loss of income arising from war-time causes, it is the intention of the Government to approve a financial plan to make the effective working of the International Labour Office possible?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the budget drawn up by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office and approved by the Supervisory Commission of the League of Nations makes adequate provision for the effective working of the International Labour Office in present circumstances.

Mr. White: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that curtailment of finance will not restrict important post-war plans?

Mr. Eden: I do not know that financial expenditure is an absolute criterion of good work being done, but, if it is, there has been an increase this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROME (BOMBING)

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to whether there is still a military camp on the outskirts of Rome; whether there are still armament factories within the city or close proximity; and whether Rome has now become the railway centre for Italian military purposes?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part of the Question, Rome lies on the main railway line from Northern to Southern Italy.

Mr. Ammon: Can Rome be considered an open city?

Mr. Eden: I think my right hon. Friend made it plain in September that we have as much right to bomb Rome as the Italians had to bomb London, and we should not hesitate to do so to the best of our ability, and as heavily as possible, if the course of the war should render such action convenient and helpful.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. Friend press on his colleagues in the Cabinet the necessity of seeing that we prosecute the war with vigour by bombing Rome?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend must surely be aware that this is a completely united Cabinet on all points.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only two years ago Mussolini wrote to Hitler asking to be allowed the honour of sharing in the bombing of London?

Mr. Eden: I have several memories of Mussolini.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it more difficult to get to Rome than to Berlin?

Oral Answers to Questions — JEWS

German Barbarities (Vatican Attitude)

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any expression of sympathy has been sought or obtained from the Vatican in support of the declaration, condemning the atrocities committed on the Jewish people by the German authorities, made by the British

and other European Governments and the Government of the United States of America?

Mr. Eden: The Vatican were officially informed of the joint declaration on this subject made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and other Governments of the United Nations on 17th December last. The attitude of the Vatican towards all such acts at variance with Christianity and humanity has been frequently stated and most recently by the Pope in his last Christmas Eve broadcast.

Mr. Ammon: Has any statement been made with reference to the recent announcement regarding Jewish atrocities?

Mr. Eden: Since we made that announcement the Pope in his broadcast condemned the persecution of hundreds of thousands of people who, through no fault of their own, sometimes only owing to their nationality or descent, are condemned to death or to slow decline.

Miss Rathbone: Might not something more specific than that very mild reference be elicited from his Holiness?

Refugees (Relief)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will report on any action taken since December, 1942, by His Majesty's Government, separately or in co-operation with the other United Nations, for the rescue of political refugees and of persons threatened by the Nazi policy of exterminating European Jewry?

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the urgent necessity to do everything possible to assist the Jewish victims of the fresh phase of German persecution, he will now define clearly the policy of His Majesty's Government towards any Jewish refugee who may succeed in escaping from German-controlled territory?

Professor A. V. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps are being taken, either by His Majesty's Government or in consultation with the United Nations, to offer asylum to refugees from enemy, or enemy-occupied, countries, who avoid extermination by escape to neighbouring territories?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what practical steps have been taken, or are contemplated in the near future, to rescue Jews threatened by the Nazi policy of extermination?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given on this subject yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister's answer referred to those who make their way to countries not under German control, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the first step towards getting into a neutral country from an enemy country is obviously to get a visa from Great Britain, and, even if that Visa is never executed, it is of very great assistance in escaping from an enemy country to a neutral? Will that point be very much borne in mind?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid the hon. lady is misinformed. That situation does not arise now. That was the situation before the occupation of Unoccupied France.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the excellent sentiment expressed by the Government on this very important matter, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we refused visas for 2,000 French Jewish children, who, we understand, have since been deported to Germany?

Mr. Eden: I should like to have notice of that question. My right hon. Friend explained that we are engaged on two sets of proposals to meet the situation. One is to do what we can in certain areas for which we are responsible, and the other is to try to get an international arrangement so that everyone may help. This is a matter in which everyone should help.

Mr. Lipson: Has the stage been nearly reached when concrete proposals could be put to the German Government?

Mr. Eden: I do not know about concrete proposals to the German Government, but I hope there will be concrete results.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that any facilities given to Jewish refugees are given to all refugees?

Mr. Eden: That is a definite principle in all these proposals.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that expressions of moral indignation will lose a great part of their force unless they are accompanied by the actual initiation of steps for practical help?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member heard the Deputy Prime Minister's answer. That is exactly what we are doing in two directions, one within our own limitations and one by trying to get international agreement; and, if we can, we are ready to make our contribution to that arrangement. I do not think the hon. Member's strictures are deserved.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the Jewish refugee children in Iran who were hoping to reach Palestine via Iraq?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a similar Question on the same subject which was put yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams).

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH FORCES (UNIFICATION)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps are being taken to unify the Fighting French forces behind a Government pledged to surrender its powers to a democratically-elected national assembly at the end of the war?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to which I have nothing at present to add.

Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great disquiet is felt in the country at the announcement of the appointment of M. Peyrouton?

Mr. Eden: I should like to see that Question on the Paper.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said there was bad weather in North Africa? Are there not bad and dirty politics too?

Mr. Astor: Did the Government consult M. Peyrouton?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH NORTH AFRICA

Comte de Paris

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arrival of the Comte de Paris in North Africa has taken place with the approval of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: The Comte de Paris has resided continuously in Morocco since 1940. His recent visit to Algiers was undertaken without the knowledge of His Majesty's Government, or, so far as I am aware, of the United States Government either.

Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the presence of this Pretender can only complicate an already difficult situation?

Mr. Eden: I do not believe him to be of sufficient importance to complicate anything.

Political Prisoners (Release)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the release of political prisoners in North Africa?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement regarding the position of persons of anti-Nazi sympathies interned, imprisoned or engaged on forced labour in French North Africa; whether the request for the liberation of such persons and for the abrogation of all regulations reflecting Nazi ideology has been complied with; and whether those liberated include Spanish Republicans, members of the International Brigade which fought in Spain and persons of Jewish race confined on racial grounds?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement about the release of anti-Fascist prisoners of war in North Africa, including members of the International Brigade?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, as also the United States Government, have lost no opportunity of impressing upon the French authorities in North Africa the importance which they attach to the early release of all persons of whatever nationality who have been detained there on account of their sympathies with the Allied cause. It is known that many of these political

prisoners have already been released. There must, however, inevitably be a number of doubtful cases. In order to investigate these, a Mixed Commission has now been set up under the joint chairmanship of the British and United States Consuls-General at Algiers. I hope that the Commission's reports will make it possible for me to give the House fuller information about the prisoners still under detention. In the meantime, the following details have become available.
So far as can be ascertained, no British subjects are now improperly detained in Algeria or Morocco. As regards French nationals, the United States authorities were informed at the end of December that orders had been given to prison camp commanders and provincial authorities in North Africa to release all French nationals who were still detained for having helped the Allied cause. It is hoped that the Mixed Commission will be able to verify that these orders have been carried out. As regards Allied nationals, many of whom were, I understand, members of the former International Brigade, the position at the end of December was that some 200 Poles, over 100 Soviet nationals and a few Czechs and Belgians remained under detention in Algeria. Full details are not available of those detained in Morocco. Arrangements are being made however for the early release of the Poles, Czechs and Belgians. The Soviet citizens will return to their own country as soon as transport can be arranged for them, and His Majesty's Government are in touch with the Soviet Government on this question.
As regards other members of the former International Brigade and other Spanish Republican refugees, I regret that I am still without detailed information. The Mixed Commission is well aware of the necessity for finding a satisfactory solution of this particular problem at the earliest possible moment and one of its first tasks will be to investigate the situation of these people. In the meantime, it should be noted that one of its terms of reference is to obtain for them before their release as good living conditions as possible. I am not aware that any persons have been detained in North Africa solely on account of their Jewish faith.
As regards the question of anti-Jewish laws and other measures introduced by the Vichy régime since 1940, the French authorities are aware of our views and


although, as the Minister Resident recently stated, the position is not satisfactory, I trust that the necessary steps will be taken as soon as circumstances permit.

Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend consider two reports which I will send him from refugees quite recently arrived in this country from North Africa, describing the really cruel conditions which existed until a very short time ago, including forced work in labour battalions?

Mr. Eden: I will certainly be glad to consider any reports which the hon. Lady sends me.

Mr. Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the fact that many of the Free French sympathisers have been locked up not nominally on political charges but on various trumped-up charges, such as desertion or stealing rifles and other things, and will he ask the Commission to take great care to see whether people arrested on supposedly criminal charges were not in fact locked-up for trying to join the Allies?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will understand from the very long answer which I have given that the authorities have been very active in this matter. I think that the appointment of this Commission is the right way to handle an extremely complicated question, affecting a very wide area, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Poles, the Czechs and other Allied prisoners of war who are being released will be returned to this country or to the United States of America and not sent to their own countries?

Mr. Eden: Certainly. Of course they would not be sent back to enemy-occupied territory.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the prisoners who are going to be released include those 27 French Communist deputies?

Mr. Eden: I rather think that they were released some time ago. But I cannot give a definite answer off-hand.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Do I understand that the subjects of Axis Powers who have been put into prison because of

their opposition to the Governments of those countries come within the province of this Commission?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, certainly they do. This Commission is to cover the whole problem of all prisoners, of whom there are many.

Mr. A. Bevan: Can we have the names of the Commission?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I shall be able to give them, but the chairman will be alternately our own Consul-General in Algiers and the United States Consul-General in Algiers.

Mr. Bevan: Shall we include on the Commission representatives of some of the smaller Allied nations?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might be allowed to consider that point. It is not for me to set up the Commission from here, but I did look at the arrangement, and I thought it seemed a very good one.

Mr. Leach: Will this Commission have the right to see that its decisions are carried out?

Mr. Eden: Oh, yes, this Commission was appointed under the Supreme Allied Command in North Africa, and I must make it plain that the American authorities have been most anxious and active in promoting the work of this Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Compassionate Allowance Claim

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the great hardship suffered by Mr. S. H. Jones, of 122, Oldbury Road, West Bromwich, by reason of the fact that he has contracted the rare disease of myasthenia gravis while serving in the Royal Air Force, he will consider granting him a compassionate allowance?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): As the hon. Member is aware, the disability from which this ex-airman is suffering is not regarded as attributable to his service in the Royal Air Force, and I regret that there is no authority under which any form of allowance could be granted to him from Air Force Funds.

Mr. Dugdale: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that one of the


reasons given for not granting any allowance was the fact that this man was patriotic enough to join up before the war and that this disease was contracted before the war, because I understand that if it had been contracted later, he would have been eligible for an allowance?

Sir A. Sinclair: The only reason is that the disease is not attributable to his service.

Royal Observer Corps

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the results of substituting young girls for men over 50 years of age in the Royal Observer Corps?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is too early yet to pronounce upon this matter, but there is no reason to suppose that the results will be less satisfactory than in the case of similar employment in the operations rooms of Fighter Command.

Mr. Hannah: May I ask whether an adequate number of really competent girls have been found for this work?

Sir A. Sinclair: They are being found.

Volunteer Reserve (Air Rank)

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the experience of many officers of the Volunteer Reserve of the Royal Air Force in positions in civil life in which they achieved high reputations for organising, administrative and executive ability, more of them will be promoted to air rank where it would be possible for their abilities to be made more use of?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is the policy to promote to air rank the best officers available, irrespective of whether they are regular or non-regular.

Mr. Purbrick: In view of the well known fact that there are some thousands of these very highly qualified men from civil walks of life now serving in the Volunteer Reserve, surely there must be more than three of them who would qualify for air rank, and would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have a comb-out to see whether he could not find more men with excellent brains who might be made use of than are being used at the present time?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the great majority of the posts which are of air rank have to be filled by officers with flying experience, whereas the great majority of the officers to whom he refers are without flying experience. Subject to that consideration, I can assure him that our object is to choose the best men for the posts, irrespective of whether they are regular officers or not.

Fighter-Bombers (Dive-bombing)

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any of our fighter-bombers are equipped so that they can also dive bomb?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir.

Mr. Purbrick: Would it not be advisable to have some of those fighter-bombers so equipped that they could also serve as dive-bombers under suitable conditions?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; because the effect of that would be to impair their performance as fighters, and it would be very unfair to the pilots who have to fly those aircraft.

Mr. Shinwell: Have we abandoned the policy of producing dive-bombers?

Sir A. Sinclair: We have never produced dive-bombers, but they are coming to us from the United States of America.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we using dive-bombers?

Sir A. Sinclair: There are dive-bombers in squadrons now in active theatres of war.

Mr. Purbrick: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister stated in the House last July that the majority of Air Marshals and others of high rank opposed dive-bombers, how is it that dive-bombers were ordered two years previously, and—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Allied Bombers (Losses over Germany and Western Europe)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air, how many Allied bombers were destroyed over Germany and Western Europe up to 31st December, 1941, and how many during the year ended 31st December, 1942?

Sir A. Sinclair: The number of Allied bomber aircraft operating from this country which were reported lost over Germany and Western Europe up to 31st December, 1941, was 1,242. The number in 1942 was 1,337.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Napier Company and English Electrical Company

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production on what grounds he has approved the transaction between the Napier Company and the English Electrical Company; how much Government money is employed in each concern; whether he is aware that compensation on a basis of salaries, involving large sums of money, is being awarded to directors of the Napier Company who have failed to produce adequate results; and whether he will vary this agreement?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): This matter concerns my Department only to the extent of a change in management control and the acquisition of certain fixed assets by the Department from the Napier Company. I am satisfied that this change will be for the benefit of production. It is undesirable on security grounds to divulge the total of Government assets operated by the company, but I am prepared to let my hon. Friend have the figures privately if he so wishes. The compensation paid to the retiring directors of the company was entirely a matter for the shareholders, and I have no power to vary the arrangement arrived at.

Mr. Edwards: Inasmuch as the money was provided by the Government in order to carry this transaction through, does the Minister think it right that men who have drawn substantial salaries for a good many years, and have failed in their job, should be compensated? Is he aware that the compensation, if it is free of tax, as I understand it is, amounts to something like £300,000?

Sir S. Cripps: The money for compensation was not provided by the Government, and it is not a question for the Government but one for the shareholders only.

Mr. Edwards: Is it not a fact that the Government did provide £750,000 in

order that this transaction should be carried through?

Sir S. Cripps: That is not the reason why the money was provided, nor was it paid for that purpose.

Mr. Edwards: It came from the Government.

Factory Directors (Fees and Salaries)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether the board of directors of the aircraft factory to which Mr. Marden has recently been appointed controller continue to draw their fees and salaries as before?

Sir S. Cripps: Mr. Marden was not appointed Controller of the factory in question, but was elected by the Board as deputy chairman and managing director. The question of the fees and salaries paid to the directors is one for the company. I understand a reorganisation is proceeding, and no doubt payments will be continued in those cases where there are continuing agreements and where services continue to be rendered.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOAT "GOLDEN HORN" (LOSS)

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any information with regard to the recent loss of a British flying boat in the River Tagus?

Sir A. Sinclair: The flying boat "Golden Horn" operated by the British Overseas Airways Corporation crashed at Lisbon on 9th January. Of the fifteen persons on board, thirteen were killed—six British employees of the Corporation and seven Portuguese subjects. The cause of this unfortunate accident is now under investigation. When the report is received I will consider whether a further statement can be made. I am sure the House will wish to express its sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that some of these overage transport aircraft which British Overseas Airways Corporation are using should be withdrawn from service; and in view of the fact that we have an understanding with the United States Government that while we make military types they should make transport types,


will he approach the United States Government with a view to their allotting to the British Overseas Airways Corporation a number of new boats which will enable my right hon. Friend to do his best to remedy the present situation?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the second part of his supplementary question wanders some way from the original Question on the Paper. As regards the first part, I would prefer to receive the report of the inquiry which is now being held before deciding what is the right lesson to be drawn from the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Stamping Machines

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he will consider setting up stamping machines so as to avoid the process by which letters to be sent require, perhaps, three separate stamps to be bought, licked and stuck on?
(2) whether he will introduce into the House of Commons a stamping machine to avoid postage stamps and the attendant expense in labour and material?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not aware of any coin-operated stamping or franking machine which is not open to serious disadvantages. Even if a satisfactory machine of this kind were available, it would be necessary to produce it in quantity in order to replace the very large numbers of automatic stamp-selling machines in Post Office use; and this would entail a considerable expenditure of skilled labour and material which could not be contemplated at the present time. Considerations of labour and material also preclude any question of adapting automatic stamp-selling machines to sell 2½d. stamps.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Have not Neo-Post perfected a stamping machine which operates under Government licence and is in use by the Post Office, and could not one be installed by way of experiment in the House of Commons?

Mr. Morrison: That is another question. I will consider it.

Secondary School Pupils (Employment)

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Postmaster-General whether in order to avoid the disorganisation of secondary school classes in Wiltshire, he will issue an instruction that secondary scholars are not to be taken into permanent Post Office employment before the end of the secondary school course upon which the parents have agreed with the education authorities?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Post Office has no desire to encourage secondary school pupils to leave school prematurely against the wishes of the local education authorities, and in 1941 instructions were issued to head postmasters in Wiltshire not to recruit such pupils unless the education authorities were willing to release them. If in any special case a head postmaster still desired to recruit a pupil despite the objections of the education authorities, he was to consult his headquarters before taking any action. I regret to find that these instructions were overlooked in one recent instance and two girls were irregularly recruited locally without reference to headquarters.

Sir P. Hurd: May I take it that my right hon. Friend realises the extreme objection to any action of his countervailing the action and policy of the Government with regard to secondary education?

Mr. Morrison: I have no desire at all to interfere with the education of secondary school pupils. The only point I keep in mind is that sometimes the fortunes of a family change, and it becomes advisable for the boy to get good employment. Then, if everybody is agreed, I am unwilling to refuse him entry to the Post Office where he can get a good career, not a blind-alley occupation, and can rise to any position which his talents justify.

Mr. Leach: Although the right hon. Gentleman desires not to interfere with the course of secondary education, that is precisely what he is doing all along.

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is not the case.

Parcels for Ships (Postage Rates)

Mr. Mander: asked the Postmaster-General why, in the case of parcels sent to His Majesty's ships, including merchant vessels, there is a varying charge


dependent upon whether the ship is in home waters or not, in view of the fact that the senders cannot and ought not to have or pass on this information; and whether he will consider the advisability of charging, in ail cases, the ordinary inland postage rates?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The postage rates for parcels addressed to His Majesty's ships in foreign waters, including merchant vessels taken up for naval or military service, are higher than those applicable to parcels for such ships in home waters because of the higher costs of transmission. Although senders should not, and probably do not, know the precise location of a ship, they are frequently in a position to judge whether a ship is at home or abroad. However, since the hon. Member raised this Question on 9th December, I have given further consideration to the subject and have decided that inland rates should be charged on parcels for His Majesty's ships whenever the sender of a parecl does not know whether the ship is abroad or not. Instructions to this effect are being issued to Post Office counter staffs and will come into force on 1st February.

Mr. Mander: Thank you.

Airgraph Mails

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Postmaster-General the average time anticipatorily allotted to the transmission of a Services airgraph when the scheme was introduced; and what is the actual average time now taken with such messages?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It was expected that the average time of transmission of airgraph mails to the base in the Middle East would be about two weeks and to India and South Africa about three weeks. In practice, the transmission times vary considerably, but the present average times are eight days and 15 days respectively. These times do not include the intervals between posting and the despatch af the airgraph film from this country, the time required for the photographic processes at the distant end, or the time, depending on the location of the addressee, required to effect delivery, all of which are subject to considerable variation.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: When does the right hon. Gentleman

expect a service to open up for North Africa?

Mr. Morrison: That matter is now under consideration. I cannot give a date yet.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Postmaster-General whether the system of recordak photography, and the later stages of developing and processing for the airgraph service are under the complete control of the Post Office; and what arrangements are made with Messrs. Kodak, Limited, in this connection?

Mr. Morrison: The whole of the photographic work in connection with the airgraph service is performed on behalf of my Department, and of the other postal administrations concerned, by Kodak, Ltd., under arrangements to be embodied in a formal agreement, the precise terms of which are at present the subject of negotiation with the Company.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the fact that this service will be more widely used after the war, particularly by commercial firms, will he not agree that it should come entirely under Post Office control?

Mr. Morrison: The question of post-war policy on this is rather hypothetical at the moment, but at the time the airgraph service was introduced there was great delay to Service mails due to their diversion round the Cape of Good Hope, and it was necessary to take advantage of this firm which possessed the equipment and trained personnel who could operate it in all parts where it was being used.

Mr. Bellenger: Considering that the right hon. Gentleman is now negotiating some sort of agreement with Kodak, will he bear in mind the possibility of this process being acquired by the Post Office, and therefore belong to the State, and not be utilised to make profits for a private firm?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, that possibility will be borne in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: Will this agreement terminate at the end of the war, or is the agreement contemplated a permanent one?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the agreement will make some provision for its termination.

Hon. Members: At the end of the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — SEASIDE HOTELS AND BOARDING-HOUSES (REHABILITATION)

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he has under consideration any scheme for assisting the rehabilitation and development of hotel and boarding-house accommodation in English seaside resorts in the immediate post-war period?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): Every endeavour will be made to hand back to their owners any requisitioned hotel and boarding-house accommodation in English seaside resorts at the earliest practicable date after the cessation of hostilities. Where only chattels, but not the premises, have been requisitioned, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 18th November last to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam).

Captain Macdonald: My Question referred to the rehabilitation of the industry after the war; who is responsible and who is dealing with it at the present time?

Mr. Hicks: My Ministry is dealing with it, and every step will be taken to restore hotels after the war.

Captain Macdonald: The Question does not deal solely with the requisitioning of the industry, but with its rehabilitation after the war.

Mr. Hicks: After we have requisitioned we shall rehabilitate.

Mr. Thorne: Will they be put back into the old conditions suitable for accommodation?

Mr. Hicks: I cannot guarantee the form in which they will be returned after the war, but I can say on the general question that any hotels requisitioned will be made habitable.

Mr. Kirkwood: What is the Minister doing to make dwellings habitable for the working class?

Mr. Hicks: We hope to do it simultaneously.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS, LONDON (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

Works and Planning, in view of the many large houses in the London area, at present unoccupied owing to shortage of domestic help and other reasons, whether he will consider, where possible, transferring Government offices from blocks of flats to accommodation which cannot at present be used for housing purposes?

Mr. Hicks: The blocks of flats acquired by my Department for office purposes are mainly of the larger type commanding substantial rents before the war. The release of these flats it is considered would not be of material assistance, as I am advised that the present demand is for the smaller and therefore less expensive flats. Moreover, the suggested transfer would involve a serious loss of efficiency and disturbance, which could not be contemplated by the Departments concerned. My Department has not overlooked the possibilities of utilising large houses for office purposes, and has recently acquired a substantial number of vacant houses in London. A single house provides too small a unit of office space and those acquired have, therefore, been in blocks.

Sir I. Albery: Is the Minister aware that some of the flats which he has commandeered are flats which let at medium rents and that the high rents being asked for flats are largely due to the number of flats he has commandeered?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Anti-U-Boat Warfare

Sir I. Albery: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement on the recent operations against the U-boat menace?

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): I regret that it is impossible to give full information about recent operations against U-boats without assisting the enemy. I can say, however, that we have been heavily attacked by U-boats in recent months and have taken heavy toll of the attackers. Details of operations against U-boats will be published whenever this can be done without assisting the enemy.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Admiralty in a position to give us this information in Secret Session? I would like an answer.

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend should put that Question to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: Mr. Speaker, if I am in Order, I will now put it to the Leader of the House. I want to know whether, in Secret Session, the Government will be in a position to tell us what means they are taking to get control of the U-boats other than simply building ships to be sunk?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should put that Question on the Paper; he cannot expect the Minister to answer without notice.

Lieutenants (Temporary Higher Rank)

Sir A. Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many lieutenants, Royal Navy, now hold, or have held, temporary higher rank?

Mr. George Hall: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the war period only. The number of lieutenants, Royal Navy, who have been promoted to temporary higher rank since 3rd September, 1939, is 99.

Sir A. Southby: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, where it was held before the war that command of destroyers and small craft should be held by lieut.-commanders and commanders, it is only fair that those temporary ranks should be given to lieutenants now holding commands owing to the shortage of officers of higher rank?

Mr. Hall: The number which I have given to my hon. and gallant Friend does not include R.N.R. or R.N.V.R., where there is a very large number of those officers holding the ranks to which he refers.

Sir A. Southby: My Question refers to lieutenants of the Royal Navy and not the R.N.V.R.; and is there any reason why the principle of the Army that the rank goes with the job should not be applied to the Royal Navy?

Mr. Hall: This is the naval practice, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, which has been carried out.

Sir A. Southby: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Fast Merchant Vessels (Construction)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the intentions of his Department as regards the construction of fast merchant vessels?

Mr. George Hall: The policy of the Admiralty has been and will be to build, in consultation with the Ministry of War Transport, the ships which with the labour and resources available will give the best results, having regard to the need of providing within those resources for the requisite numbers of escort ships.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend knows that that is not a reply to my Question. I asked what are the intentions of the Government in respect of the construction of fast merchant ships. Is our shipbuilding policy vis-a-vis the United States unified, and has he seen the statement made by Admiral Lang, head of the American Marine Commission, that they are now re-adjusting their shipbuilding policy and intend in future to build fast ships?

Mr. Hall: The policy of the Admiralty, as I have given it, has been consistent from the commencement of the war; and, with regard to the statement to which my hon. Friend referred, I can say that there is close consultation between the Admiralty and those responsible for American shipbuilding. They have been in constant consultation since the commencement of the war.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not a fact that the policy of the Admiralty in respect of the construction of merchant ships has proved futile as one of the means of dealing with U-boats, and will the Government now reconsider their shipbuilding policy?

Mr. Hall: Certainly we cannot accept the statement put by my hon. Friend. We cannot admit it, and I would like to say that this matter has been dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the First Lord on many occasions, when, I may say, my hon. Friend did not take advantage of the opportunity of hearing what was said.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite impossible as a matter of practice to increase the average speed of convoys quicker than the enemy can increase the average speed of the U-boats?

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the reply, I want to ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider at a very early date allowing the House to discuss this question, which is fundamental in relation to the war effort?

Mr. Eden: I would like a moment to think over that proposition. My recollection is that it has recently been discussed in secret.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can I get an explanation, as I am anxious to understand the proceedings of the House, why an answer was refused the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) by the Leader of the House and an answer has been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell)?

Mr. Speaker: They were two quite different questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL POLICY (PUBLICITY)

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present approximate annual expenditure in publicising the Colonial Empire at home and overseas; and whether he has any plans for the early development and expansion of this work?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Expenditure on information services in respect of the Colonial Empire is spread amongst various agencies, including the Colonial Office, Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. The amount could not be computed without an undue expenditure of labour, and no figure which could be given would reflect an accurate measure of the work being done. I fully recognise the urgent necessity for informing the public in this country and elsewhere about Colonial policy. I have given a good deal of personal thought to the matter, and have also had the advantage of consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information. I have further plans under consideration which I hope to put into operation as soon as possible.

Mr. A. Bevan: Before any public money is spent on a subject of this sort, should not an appropriate Committee of the House of Commons have an opportunity of considering it, because money spent in this way can easily be used for propaganda for a political party as well as for the Empire?

Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman need not be so suspicious. Most of the money is expended by the Ministry of Information, whose Vote comes up in the

ordinary course before the House. Similarly, any money spent by the Colonial Office will be subject to the hon. Gentleman's scrutiny at the appropriate time.

Mr. Bevan: After you have spent it.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman try to expedite this matter because of the increased interest in it in the public mind?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, I fully realise the increased interest, and that that calls for increased publicity.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES (MEDICAL SERVICES)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the urgent need for an increase in the medical services in the African Colonies, he will consider creating scholarships to enable students from these Colonies to acquire professional training in medicine in this country; and whether the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund is available for this purpose?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. I agree that some action of this kind will be necessary in order to strengthen the medical services in the African Colonies, and my hon. Friend may be assured that his suggestion will receive every consideration. I should certainly be prepared to consider making a scheme under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to finance any practicable measures which may be devised.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the United Africa Company has already provided two scholarships of £300 a year for four years in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, and could not that example be followed by the Government?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, that is so, but I think the matter requires great consideration.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not see also that any Africans trained in medicine in this country have the same status when practising in their own country, as any appointments have to be British?

Colonel Stanley: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (ROYAL WARRANT)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider the Royal Warrant that forms the basis for the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, and that the Committee be authorised to send for papers or persons and to report?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not aware of any reasons which would justify the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Royal Warrant. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has recently conferred with his statutory Advisory Committee in regard to certain minor changes which experience has shown to be necessary, and copies of the amended Warrant will be made available to hon. Members on the next Sitting Day.

Mr. Smith: Before the Royal Warrant is finally approved, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the House to consider it?

Mr. Attlee: I will consider that suggestion.

Later—

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to ask, Mr. Speaker, a question on Business and the procedure to be adopted. I understood from the Deputy Prime Minister that the revised Royal Warrant was to be published on the next Sitting Day. If that is so, is the procedure that the Royal Warrant will be submitted to His Majesty? In view of our past experience and the complaints in the country against the administration of previous Royal Warrants, should not the House be given an opportunity to consider this revised Royal Warrant before it is finally endorsed by His Majesty? If my understanding of the matter is correct, would the Leader of the House give an assurance that what I am asking should be adopted and that the revised Royal Warrant proposed to be published on the next Sitting Day will be withheld until the House has considered it?

Mr. Eden: I am sorry that I have not had notice of this. I am not familiar with the position, but I will try to familiarise myself with it as rapidly as I can and give the information to the House. As I have said, I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise this matter.

Mr. Smith: I also had no idea that I intended to raise it. I am relying on an answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister, of which I had no knowledge. In view of the importance of this matter and before the House parts with the opportunity, may I request the Leader of the House to give this assurance? We ought to have the assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Eden: I have my right hon. Friend's answer here, and I have been hurriedly looking at it. As I understand the position, I do not think it can be as urgent as the hon. Gentleman thinks, because, from the terms of my right hon. Friend's answer, it is clear that copies of the amended Warrant will be made available to hon. Members on our next Sitting Day. Therefore, I think that between now and then I can give a considered answer.

Mr. Smith: In view of that, is it the procedure that the revised Royal Warrant will be submitted to His Majesty before it is published, and, if so, should not the House have an opportunity of considering these revisions before the Warrant is finally endorsed by His Majesty?

Mr. Eden: I find it difficult to give an assurance owing to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and without knowledge of the terms of this Warrant, but I think I can give the assurance; anyhow, I will attempt to implement it.

Mr. Smith: This is important, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that publication of this Royal Warrant will be withheld until the question of what should be the procedure has been considered?

Mr. Eden: I am in a considerable difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman had given me only five minutes' notice, I could have sent for the Minister of Pensions and obtained the details of the Royal Warrant. As it is, I am quite ignorant of the terms of this Warrant, but what the hon. Gentleman suggests can, I think, be done. Anyway, I will try to meet him.

Mr. Stephen: Is not this the position? Since the amended Warrant will be made available to Members on our next Sitting Day, does that not show that it has already received Royal approval?

Mr. Eden: That is just the reservation I have in mind.

Mr. A. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be perplexed about the wrong thing. What is being put is not what are the amendments in the Warrant but the whole matter of procedure and that before the Royal Warrant is amended the whole procedure should be revised, as this affects the welfare, of so many of our people, and we ought to have an opportunity of considering the proposed amendments before His Majesty appends his signature.

Mr. Eden: My difficulty is that the terms of the Royal Warrant are not familiar to me—if I could have had five minutes' notice, I could have looked up the terms—and I do not know what the position is at the moment. I will try to devise some means of giving the House information on this.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is still pursuing the wrong point. The issue before us is not what amendments there are or are not in the Royal Warrant. The issue before us is that a new Royal Warrant is about to be issued and that that Royal Warrant has already been approved by His Majesty before the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing the amendments.

Mr. Eden: What I wish to find out are the exact circumstances and the exact position in relation to the Royal Warrant, with which I am not familiar, I cannot be expected to carry that in my head, and that is why I wish I could have had notice. I will try to find some means of meeting the difficulty.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the seriousness of this matter, there are other steps which we can take under the Standing Orders if we choose to do so, but in view of the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman is, we do not want to take those steps. However, the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty is not our responsibility. It is the Government's. I also have the right to complain, because I had no knowledge of the reply which was to be given. In view of the seriousness of this matter, may I again ask whether we can have an assurance from the Leader of the House that publication of the Royal Warrant will be withheld until the right

hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of giving consideration to the point?

Mr. Eden: I will look into this matter and try to meet my hon. Friend's point. He says that he could not have given me notice, but if he had even told me after my right hon. Friend gave his answer, I should have had a moment in which to look into the matter. But I was given no notice. I ask my hon. Friend to accept the assurance that I will do all that lies within my power to meet the point which he has raised.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If, as I assume, the Royal Warrant has been approved by His Majesty and will be published on the next Sitting Day, is there any step that any hon. Member can take to record his protest against the Royal Warrant and to secure a revision of it?

Mr. Eden: That is exactly the point I have to inquire into.

Mr. Bellenger: I was asking you, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker: I can only give the same answer that has been given by the Minister.

Mr. Smith: This question is so serious that I had intended to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to it as a matter of urgent public importance. I do not want to be forced into that position. In regard to the accusation made by the Leader of the House about my not giving him notice, I am the last person who would wish to be discourteous, but I was not able to give him notice because of the fact that the answer was given only a few minutes ago. I had to consult authorities on procedure before I felt competent to take the stand I am now taking. May I again ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance to the House that publication of this Royal Warrant will be withheld until he and the Government have had an opportunity of considering the point I have raised?

Mr. Eden: I do not know whether or not the Royal Warrant has already been published. The only assurance I can give the hon. Member, which I think is a perfectly fair one, is that if there is any step which it is within my power to take constitutionally, I shall take it. Beyond that I cannot go.

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid we have spent a long time on this question. I am as ignorant of the practice as the right hon. Gentleman is. If it be the case that the Royal Warrant is not yet published and is to be published on the next Sitting Day, would it be possible to withhold publication of it until my right hon. Friend can make a statement, say, at the end of Questions then? This might solve the problem.

Mr. Eden: That is the kind of thing I had in mind. If that is the position, that is what I will do.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (OPERATIONAL CONTROL)

Captain C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing a Royal Air Force officer as Air Marshal-in-Chief, Home Forces, to act in a similar capacity as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned as the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces for the Army, so that one man shall be responsible for the operational control and co-ordination of the various Royal Air Force commands operating in this theatre of the war?

Mr. Attlee: The present organisation of the Metropolitan Air Force has stood the test of over three years of war, and in the present circumstances I think it would be unwise to alter it.

Captain Taylor: Would it not be much better if the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, had only one R.A.F. officer to deal with, instead of having to communicate with several R.A.F. commanders?

Mr. Attlee: I said the present arrangements have stood a pretty severe test. The commanders of the various R.A.F. commands are co-ordinated by the Chief of the Air Staff.

Captain Taylor: Is not every arrangement capable of improvement?

Captain Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a Commander-in-Chief having operational control of all fighting services in each theatre of the war in which British Forces are engaged?

Mr. Attlee: I have nothing to add to previous replies on this subject.

Captain Taylor: As this matter is one of serious concern, can I have an answer if I put a Question down again at an early date?

Mr. Attlee: It depends on the Question.

Captain Taylor: The same Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Production whether the scientific advisers on his staff now report to him instead of through the Lord Privy Seal?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production was appointed to his new Department it was arranged that in future the three scientific advisers should report direct to me. I may add that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has agreed that the scientific advisers should also have direct access to the Scientific Advisory Committee, of which my right hon. Friend has recently become the President.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

Departmental Committees

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will give a list of the Departmental Committees on post-war problems which he has set up, with the membership and terms of reference of each?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): Under the arrangements which I described generally to the House in the Debate on the Address, Committees of this kind are constantly being appointed, some completing their work in one or two meetings, others taking longer. I do not think there would be any advantage—indeed, I think there would be definite disadvantage—in giving detailed publicity to these informal proceedings.

Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise that where these Committees exist it would be more convenient for the public if they knew to whom they should refer a suggestion or a problem? At present they do not know which of these Committees is the relevant one.

Sir W. Jowitt: Such matters can always be referred to the Minister concerned.

Sir A. Southby: Would it not be well for the public' to know by whom their future is being mortgaged?

Employment

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in view of the fact that discussions about post-war social security must necessarily be influenced by the post-war employment situation, and having regard to the great interest amongst members of the Armed Forces in the post-war policy as it will affect them when they are ex-Service men, he can state the Government's plans to secure or promote employment generally; and whether ex-Servicemen as a whole, and ex-fighting men in particular, will be assured of a preference for employment?

Sir W. Jowitt: As I have stated in reply to previous Questions, inquiries are actively proceeding into the many aspects of the problem of providing full employment after the war. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the detailed policy to be adopted must largely depend upon the nature of any international settlement which may be arrived at. All the Departmental Ministers concerned have this problem constantly before them. I cannot go into greater detail, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government attach the highest importance to the solution of this problem.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the ordinary serving soldier, being a wise man, is very sceptical about international arrangements for trade, and about a "better Britain"? He may want it, but he is sceptical about its realisation. What he would understand is a promise that he will have a preference for employment when he comes back from a distant theatre of war. Could the Government promise that?

Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir; I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. Hopkinson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that as long as the Pre-War Practices Act is in operation it is impossible to promise these men employment after the war, and that while this Act holds any Government promises are nonsense and humbug?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Imports from North Africa

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any arrangements have yet been made to import lemons, oil and wine from North Africa?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 8th December to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower).

Captain Macdonald: Is it not about time that something more useful should come out of that country than the spate of bad French politics which we are receiving to-day?

Mr. Mabane: I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the answer he will see the reason.

Milk Pasteurisation

Dr. Russell: Thomas asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in view of the fact that more than 90 per cent. of the milk consumed in the London area is subjected to a process known as pasteurisation and that the number of deaths in London from tuberculosis in children under 15 years of age was 12 per cent. more in 1941 than in 1938, in spite of the reduction in child population in 1941 due to evacuation, will he say what sum was expended by his Department in advertising this prepared milk in 1941?

Mr. Mabane: Nothing was expended by my Department in advertising pasteurised milk in 1941.

Dr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statistics of the Medical Officer of the London County Council show that, in spite of wholesale pasteurisation, the actual death rate from non-pulmonary tuberculosis has increased by 67 per cent. during the war, and that it is much greater than in the country as a whole?

Mr. Mabane: The Question relates to advertising.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is the hon. Member aware that the highest medical authorities in the country refute the suggestion which has been made?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, with a view to destroying pathogenic organisms in non-pasteurised milk consumed by the population and resulting in widespread disease and deaths, it is now intended that all milk for human consumption will be scientifically pasteurised;

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps his Department has taken regarding the subject of the general pasteurisation of milk?

Mr. Mabane: The question of the appropriate and practical steps which can be taken to secure the elimination of active tubercle organisms from liquid milk is at present under consideration with the Agricultural and Health Departments and other interests.

Mr. Adams: In view of that evasive answer, which is a repetition of previous answers, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Major Petherick: In view of the controversy about the pasteurisation of milk, will the Parliamentary Secretary arrange for half-a-dozen doctors to be fed on pasteurised milk and a further half-dozen to be fed on non-pasteurised milk, so that we can see what happens?

British Restaurants

Sir John Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the revised interpretation now placed by his Department upon agreements made with local authorities for the establishment of British Restaurants, he will in any future agreements require local authorities to accept liability for amortisation of capital expenditure out of their own revenues when profits are insufficient?

Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend regrets that he does not see his way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Sir J. Mellor: Does my hon. Friend now admit that there is a contingent Exchequer liability which he previously disputed? Ought not that to make a difference?

Mr. Mabane: This is a very complicated matter, and I would rather see that Question on the Paper.

Fish Friers

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that fish friers, whose shops are situated at a considerable distance from the nearest fish market, are often themselves unable to go there to buy fish; and whether he will consider inaugurating a system of Government distribution of fish from market to fish frier to replace the service previously provided by wholesalers?

Mr. Mabane: I am aware of this difficulty, and it has been found possible in the case already brought to notice to make arrangements for retailers who have facilities for bringing fish from the wholesale markets to collect and convey the supplies for neighbouring fish traders. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any other cases he has in mind I shall be glad to make investigations, to secure that any difficulties of distribution may be effectively overcome.

Creameries, Lancashire

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the number of creameries in Lancashire which have been-hitherto making Lancashire cheese; the number of such firms which are to be regarded as redundant and suppressed; the basis for the issue of notices of closure; whether regard has been had to next summer's manufacturing programme; the nature of the permitted programme; and what guarantee will be given that after the war all concentrated firms will be allowed to resume on present lines?

Mr. Mabane: Thirty-seven creameries in Lancashire were originally licensed by my Department to manufacture cheese, of which nine were last summer provided with milk for cheese manufacture. No final decision has yet been taken on the manufacturing programme for 1943, so that it is not yet possible to state how many creameries in Lancashire will be required. The notices of closure which have been issued relate to the function of the creameries as redistributors of milk. The actual number which will be kept open as cheese manufacturers will depend on the cheese-manufacturing programme, which has not yet been finally settled. Those creameries which are not required for cheese-making will be regarded as redundant in order to secure the maximum


economies in the transport and manpower used in the movement of milk. The manner in which the concentrated firms will resume their activities after the war will depend on general Government policy at the time.

Mr. Hewlett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Milk Movements Branch of the Ministry of Food has issued notices of redundancy to 15 out of 19 cheese-making creameries in Lancashire?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. It is indicated in my answer that those notices relate to their function as redistributors of milk.

Fish (Distribution)

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that some important war factories are unable to get fish for their workers' canteens; and how much tonnage of fish has been sold for manure during the past three months?

Mr. Mabane: I am not aware that factory canteens have experienced greater difficulty in obtaining fish than members of the general public. I have no particulars of the weight of fish sold for manure. Fish offal and fish unfit for human consumption is used for the manufacture of animal feeding stuffs as well as for fertilisers. The quantity of fish condemned at the principal ports during October, November and December, represented 0·37 of 1 per cent. of the landings.

Mr. Logan: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one requires a microscope now to be able to look at herrings?

Captain Sir William Brass: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say what has happened to whitebait, because we never get any now?

Mr. G. Griffiths: You get plenty of cod from the Front Bench.

Green Vegetables (Prices)

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the protest from the Metropolitan Borough Council of Deptford against prices fixed by the Ministry of Food for greenstuffs being greatly in excess of present current prices; and, in view of the possibility of the recently fixed maximum prices becoming the current price, what action does he propose to take?

Mr. Mabane: The resolution of the Deptford Borough Council to which my hon. Friend refers was passed on 2nd January. The Order did not become effective until nth January. The resolution, which refers to "fixed prices," appears to have been passed under a misapprehension. A reply has been sent repeating the explanation issued when the Order was announced on 30th December to the effect that the prices set out in the Order are maximum prices, and that the prices of perishable products such as green vegetables are likely to fluctuate considerably within these maxima. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the statement to which I have referred. He may also have seen a statement issued by the Retail Fruit Trade Federation on 12th January. In that statement the Federation pledged themselves not to charge the maximum price for green vegetables where there is no justification for it. They added that the public should help by refusing to patronise shops where unreasonable prices are charged; and that to assist housewives to identify shops where green vegetables are being sold at less than the maximum prices, window bills are being issued by the Federation for display by the retailers concerned. I should like to express my Noble Friend's appreciation of the most helpful co-operation of the Retail Fruit Trade Federation and retailers of green vegetables generally in this matter.

Mr. Green: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the very widespread apprehension among housewives and that the fixing of these maximum prices in advance has been tantamount to an invitation to certain sections of the trade to raise prices to the maximum? In view of the fact that this has already been reported in some districts, can he say what action he proposes to take?

Mr. Mabane: I am aware of exactly the opposite. Before the Order came into effect it was confidently predicted that the maximum would become the fixed price, but that has not been the case. The vegetable trade have co-operated extremely well, and so far as I know in no cases have maximum prices been charged without justification.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that because of the favourable weather we have had there has been a plentiful supply for the market, so that top prices have not been charged?


Can he tell the House who were the people inside his Ministry on the advisory committee which advised these prices, because they relate to famine prices and not to prices when there is a plentiful supply?

Mr. Mabane: Certainly, prices are low when supplies are plentiful. As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Supplementary Question, I would like to see that on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give guidance to the public as to what should be reasonable prices?

Mr. Mabane: The Retail Fruit Trade Federation are co-operating extremely well, and they have asked retailers to display the window bills which I have mentioned in my reply.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (MINISTER'S CORRECTION)

Mr. Simmonds: I desire to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from a Question that I addressed yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, to whom I have given such notice as in the circumstances has been possible. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would
confirm the assurance that he gave the House in previous circumstances, before Christmas, that the Minister of National Service will not remove from essential war work men and women for transfer unless the Supply Department interested in the production of the undertaking concerned has been consulted and has confirmed the view that the change is in the national interest.
I believe it will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that my right hon. Friend replied:
Certainly, I can give that assurance.
It was an assurance which the House welcomed from all sides, as it naturally would do. The correspondent of "The Times" also correctly heard the answer which my right hon. Friend gave. My attention has been drawn by a number of my hon. Friends to the fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT my right hon. Friend is reported as saying, not:
Certainly, I can give that assurance,
but:
Certainly, I can give the assurance that the Supply Departments will be consulted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1943; Vol. 386, cols. 40–41.]

But I asked two things: first, that the Supply Department would be consulted, and, secondly, that no men and women would be removed from vital industry until the Supply Department had confirmed the view that the change was in the national interest. I have consulted the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I have in my hand the typewritten transcript of the reporter's notes, and there are in the typescript the words:
Mr. LYTTELTON: Certainly, I can give that assurance.
There are also additionally in the manuscript these words:
Certainly, I can give the assurance that the Supply Departments will be consulted.
I understand from the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT that a representative of the Minister visited the office of the Editors and asked that that alteration should be made. Let me at this stage say that I think I must completely exonerate the Official Reporters when any hon. Member states that he has been misheard or misconstrued, and I understand that it is a well understood custom of the House that where an hon. Member desires slightly to modify the weight or the grammar of any of his questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not the weight."]—that it is permissible; but, certainly, it is news to me that any hon. Member or right hon. Member may withdraw an assurance or modify the substance of an answer that he has given. Indeed, this was a vital question to war industry and not one which could be trifled with lightly. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I feel it is my duty to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will be good enough to instruct the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT that a suitable alteration should be made in an approved way so that the assurance that the Minister gave should be reported in his own words. I think I ought also to ask whether you will give your powerful support in preventing any recurrence of this type of alteration, which I would respectfully submit is neither in the public interest nor in accordance with the best traditions of the House.

Mr. Speaker: As the House is aware, there is a Rule that Ministers and other Members cannot alter substantially the meaning of anything which they have said in this House. They can merely make verbal alterations, perhaps to improve the


grammar of what has been said or to make clearer what they have intended. In this particular case the Minister was wrong in authorising any alterations in or additions to what he had said, if he did do so. I think, however, it was quite innocent. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Obviously he intended to say, "I can give an assurance that this should be so," and he thought the answer as revised put it more clearly than the answer which he gave. I think he intended to clarify what he had said. I may be wrong, but that is the impression which it gives to me. As I say, however, I think he was wrong in doing so and in making this alteration, simply because it might have been open to misinterpretation, as it has been.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I apologise for this mistake, which I acknowledge has been made. I am afraid that my answer was inaudible, and therefore I asked that the reply which I had given should be looked at, and I say quite definitely, that, as it appears now, it is not what I said. I am very sorry that this mistake, for which I am responsible, should have occurred. On the other hand, the reply which I did give was not that which my hon. Friend meant. I said I could give a general assurance. I think hon. Members will remember that. If I may take this opportunity of clearing up the mistake, I would say that the reason I said "general assurance" is that, of course, it is the duty of the Supply Departments to represent to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether a large general withdrawal of skilled labour from a particular industry or section of industry is going to affect production, but it is not possible in particular cases for those representations to be made. That is only to try to clear up what I meant. What I said was "general assurance." I apologise for this mistake, and I completely acknowledge that the answer as given does not represent what I said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House inform us about the Business for to-day and the next Sitting Day?

Mr. Eden: The Government have given some consideration to the representations

made yesterday, and particularly to the suggestion that, possibly, the Debate on man-power should be divided into two parts, the first part to be in Secret Session and the second part in public. After careful examination I am sure that the latter proposal is quite impracticable. I think hon. Members would find themselves in a most embarrassing position in taking part, as it were, in the second stage of a Debate the first stage of which had already been held in Secret Session. Besides that, it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to give what-might be called a human budget in this Secret Session, involving a lot of figures. Hon. Members will no doubt want to ask a number of questions to which they will require replies, and, therefore, I suggest that our present arrangement suits them. If, after this Debate, we find that there is any demand for some other form of discussion on this topic or something kindred to it, then we had better consider that through the usual channels, but I must warn the House that we are beginning to pile up these Debates rather heavily.

Mr. Greenwood: Yesterday we had a kind of preliminary canter to the discussion which formally opens to-day. I think we got ourselves into rather a muddle over that, which was unfortunate. The result of the statement made by the Minister of Production at the end of Questions was really to strengthen the opinion held in all quarters of the House on the need for a public discussion of these problems. Hon. Members, a number of whom are here now, spoke to me about it in the course of yesterday's discussion. I can see the difficulty about splitting a Debate into two parts, one open and one closed, so to speak, but if there are to be two days of secret Debate, then I think the House will really wish, at an early date, for an open discussion in Parliament on the broader issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday and, no doubt, other matters which will be raised in the course of the Debate now about to begin.

Mr. A. Bevan: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that, may I say that the House as a whole will agree that in this matter of the mobilisation of labour we are discussing one of the questions which bear most closely on the domestic lives of our people? The Minister of Production yesterday said that there are to be


considerable transfers of men and women in the country. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but mine is that nothing causes more trouble than sending men and women hither and thither, and nothing causes more resentment than the fact that their grievances are hidden in Secret Sessions and that we have no opportunity at all of ventilating their difficulties in public and asking redress of their wrongs. Why is it necessary to have a two days' Debate? I am sure the secret Debate will disclose no reason for giving two whole days on this matter in secret, but if the Government insist on having two days in Secret Session, of course they must have it. I respectfully submit, however, that in that case we must insist on having a public Debate upon the implications of these transfers before the transfers are made, otherwise we shall not be able to hold the resentment of our people within reasonable bounds.

Earl Winterton: It is obviously impossible to discuss now, in open House, the Government's reasons for holding a Secret Session, but I would ask them to take cognisance of one fact. I think it is only courteous to warn the right hon. Gentleman and the supporters of the Government above the Gangway, that some of us, when we come to the appropriate Motion, will feel bound to raise the question of the reasons why it is necessary for the House to go into Secret Session.

Mr. Eden: Of course, hon. Members are fully entitled to do that. On the question of whether we are to have one day or two days' Debate, it was in order to meet the wishes of the House that the Government gave facilities for these two days. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has a statement of very great importance to make, and it is my belief that the House will wish to Debate the matter for two days. If it appears that they do not wish to do so, that will be another situation. My only difference with the right hon. Gentleman opposite is on his description of yesterday's discussion as a "preliminary canter". I do not think so. I think a "parallel canter" might be a more correct definition. It may be that it will be necessary to have a further Debate, and, if so, the Minister of Production might speak in it at an early stage, but I think we should stand by the

programme to which we have already agreed.

Sir Percy Harris: There are two separate problems: one, the transfer of people from one job to another, and the second, the moving of people, wholesale, from one part of the country to another. It is that second part that the House will possibly want to discuss.

Mr. Eden: That is exactly what I had in mind in my answer.

Mr. Bevan: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman too much, but I think we are entitled to say in this matter that before any scheme of transfers is put into operation—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Services? They have to move all round the country."]—we should have an assurance that we are to have an opportunity of discussing it in Public Session.

Mr. Eden: I could not give a categorical assurance of that kind. What I can say is that if there is a demand for an early public discussion of the matter through the ordinary channels, we shall naturally do our best to meet it.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind before finally deciding that unless we get a satisfactory reply some of us will be tempted to divide the House?

BILLS PRESENTED

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (TRUSTS) BILL,

"to make provision as to trust property held by or on behalf of certain universities and colleges or for purposes connected with those universities and colleges"; presented by Mr. R. S. Hudson, supported by the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL,

"to make provision in connection with the appointment of a Minister of Town and Country Planning; to provide for the transfer to that Minister of certain statutory functions; and to provide for the establishment of statutory Commissions for the purpose of exercising such functions in relation to the use and development of land in England and Wales as


hereafter may be determined"; presented by Sir William Jowitt, supported by Sir John Anderson and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to provide for the establishment of a Board for the development of supplies of electricity in the North of Scotland; to authorise the Board to generate and supply electricity and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by Sir John Anderson, Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir William Jowitt, Major Lloyd George and the Lord Advocate; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS AND DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

NEW APPOINTMENTS

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown be the Chairman of Ways and Means and that Major James Milner be the Deputy-Chairman."
Both these hon. and gallant Members have had experience in the Chair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown) has now served as Deputy-Chairman for five years, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) has been invited by Mr. Speaker every year since 1935 to serve on the Chairmen's Panel and has served as Temporary Chairman of Committees throughout that period.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I beg to move the Previous Question, "That that Question be not now put."
That is a somewhat old Motion, which is not, I believe, generally used in the House, but I understand, subject to your Ruling, Sir, that it is perfectly in Order on this occasion. I move it because, being an independent Member of the House, for many years unattached in any way to any party [Interruption]. May I ask for your protection, Sir? I have made a definite statement, which I can support by the fact that candidates from every party are regularly run against me at elections. Hon. Members might at any rate have the decency to withdraw lies of that sort.—[Interruption]. Being an independent Member of Parliament of many years' standing and not connected in any way with any party—I have to fight all parties in my constituency—and not connected with any outside interest paying my expenses, it is incumbent upon me in a case of this sort to speak what appears to be the opinion of a very large section of the House, not of one party, but of all parties. The procedure in these appointments has always been as at present, but in the present instance a new factor comes in, and that is the composition of the Government, which is now a Coalition. It is an extraordinary thing that the majority party has no proper means of making its will felt vis-à-vis the Government. That is an unfortunate state of things and gives rise to a great


deal of trouble in the procedure of the House in such a case as we have before us.
We see in "The Times" this morning that it is proposed that a certain Member of this House shall be the Deputy Chairman of Committees. No sort of official intimation of any kind has been given to the various sections of Members of the House. The only means by which the majority of the House, that is, the Conservative Members, can now be properly approached is through the 1922 Committee, and I have ascertained, though the chairman is absent owing to ill-health, from leading members of that Committee that this name has never been submitted to them for their consideration or approval. I have also ascertained that another party in the House has never had the name submitted to it. Therefore, those who are responsible for putting forward the name have not had the ordinary courtesy to ascertain whether it is the name of a gentleman who is persona grata to the bulk of the House. That is a very important thing, because, as you, Sir, are only too well aware, it is essential that the occupant of the Chair should carry with him the good will and respect and, as has happened many times in the past, the affection of the bulk of the Members. It is not a question whether the fact of that gentleman being persona grata or the opposite can be attributed to any particular reason. There was a certain Dr. Fell, of whom it was written—
I do not like you, Dr. Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell,
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like you, Dr. Fell.
Where a post of this sort has to be filled everyone, even those who do not agree with me on this point, will admit that the proceedings of this House, both in the House and in Committee, are very much conditioned by the personality of the occupant of the Chair, and it is very difficult for any man to occupy the Chair satisfactorily if there is a feeling in his own mind and in the minds of the House that he is not persona grata. I understand that the appointment of the Deputy Chairman is merely permissive. The House is under no obligation to appoint a Deputy Chairman at all, and it cannot be said that about three minutes' notice is enough. Therefore, I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to separate this Motion, or at any rate to withdraw it with a view to

separating it, and give the House some opportunity of understanding the position and privately expressing their opinion.
There has been a tendency which you, Sir, must have marked, as other Members have, to override the Privileges of the House. This seems to me a case where the House would be well advised, to use a vulgarism, to dig its toes in and show the Government that it is not the autocrat of this country but that the House of Commons must be consulted in these matters. Hence I do not see any reason why the Deputy Prime Minister should not accept the previous Question. I have had considerable discussion with him for many weeks upon the point [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No official communication has been sent me or anyone else except to the Labour Party, and the other parties have not been consulted, but it is one of the duties of Members of the House to find out what is being done. When it came to my knowledge that this proposal was going to be made, I took appropriate steps, in private, to see if I could avoid this difficulty from coming before the House. I was disappointed. I did not effect my object, and the result is that I am obliged to bring forward this Motion, so that the question of these appointments shall be deferred until the House has had an opportunity of considering the matter and until there has been an opportunity of consulting the party which is in the majority.
We know perfectly well what is happening and that this is part of what is called the "spoils system." There is public money going, and the system, as in all Coalitions, is that first one party has its hands in the till and then another. It is bringing Parliament into contempt and will bring it more and more into contempt if the country sees this bargaining between side and side as to who shall get the jobs. If this is allowed to go through, the whole status of Parliament will be irretrievably lowered, and the enemies of this Constitution, whether of the extreme right or the extreme left, would rejoice to see Parliament giving up its Privileges and being lowered in the estimation of the people of the country.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment needs a seconder. Is any Member prepared to second it?

Captain Cobb: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Greenwood: We have listened to what I regard as the most mischievous speech which I have heard since I became a Member of this House. The hon. Member, speaking as an Independent, has taken on his shoulders the responsibility of putting a point of view which, if it were right, should have been put by the party which has the majority in this House. No other hon. Member except the hon. and gallant Member who has seconded it rose to support the Amendment. Why? Because I assume that those who lead the Conservative Party are satisfied with the qualities of my hon. and gallant Friend who is proposed as Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. It has been suggested or implied that my party has been consulted. Sir, that is untrue. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will take my word. I have personal friends in the Conservative Party who will take my word.

Commander Agnew: I think my interjection was misunderstood. What I meant to say was, Was the right hon. Gentleman going to lie down under a system whereby his party, the second largest in the House, was not consulted on a matter of this kind? We think it ought to have been.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. and gallant Member is now raising a point which is an ancient constitutional point in this House. It is perfectly true that these offices in the House of Commons are held at the will and with the approval of the House, but it does fall to His Majesty's Government for the time being to initiate the discussion by bringing forward a proposed appointment, because such emoluments as there are fall upon public funds. But that is not the point. Had the hon. Member who has apparently been forcing his attentions upon the Deputy Prime Minister for some time been anxious about procedure in the method of appointment of the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, he might have raised that point; but he does not raise that point; he raises a personal point. He does not object, nor do I, to my right

hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown), who, I think, will fill the Chair with conspicuous success and with fairness to all quarters of the House.
The hon. Member goes out of his way to single out one appointment. On what grounds? Is it on grounds of public service? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has a career of public service as good as the hon. Member's. He is a man with, I suppose, 13 or 14 years' service in the House, and for seven years, I think the Deputy Prime Minister said, he has been a Temporary Chairman and has also served on Committees. He has also had a long experience of local government. What is the argument against him? The argument is that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) does not like him. If all appointments were to be judged by personal likes and dislikes, many of us would never attain any eminence. There can be only one other reason for an Amendment of this kind—a deferment—which I say is a slur upon the honour of my hon. and gallant Friend. The hon. Member is not playing fair over this thing. Some years ago the hon. Member, rising in his place as an Independent, said he had looked into the faces of members of the Labour Party and added, with a bitterness that I could not possibly emulate, "and I do not like them." There we have the whole reason.

Mr. Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman justify that statement by telling us where it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Shinwell: You said it outside, and you know you said it.

Mr. Greenwood: I am satisfied that the hon. Member said it. He does not like us.

Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement saying that I said something in this House. I therefore ask him to prove it from the official records of the House, or to withdraw it.

Mr. Greenwood: I may be wrong about the statement having been made inside the House, but there is no doubt that he made the statement outside the House. He has proved it by his action to-day. Suppose the suggested appointment had been that


of an Independent or a Conservative. The hon. Member would not have made this interjection, which, I think, is discrediting the fairmindedness of the House of Commons.

Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious and false statement. I could give the right hon. Gentleman the names of at least 50 Members of the Conservative Party in this House whom I would sooner see dead than see in the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."]

Mr. Greenwood: I do not know whom the hon. Member has in mind, but I am glad to know that it is not within his power to order this slaughter of the innocents. I really have only one word more to say. If there could be any proof that my hon. and gallant Friend were unfit to fill this post, I would be the first to say that he ought not to have it. If a man can serve in this House as my hon. and gallant Friend has served—and served his country also—for a period of years to the satisfaction of the House, however much independent individuals may dislike him, then I should have thought that the Government might be supported in the proposal which has been put forward, and I appeal to the House and its sense of honour, fairness and decency not to accept the previous Question.

Sir Percy Harris: I beg to suggest that a certain amount of unnecessary heat has been generated on what is after all a House of Commons matter, concerning the smooth working of the machinery of the House. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) showed so much heat and personal antipathy in his speech. As far as I am concerned, I feel that this appointment has been rushed. The first intimation I had of the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir Dennis Herbert) from the position of Chairman of Ways and Means was at about quarter past 11 yesterday morning. It may be that the Government were not advised in the Recess that the right hon. Gentleman had decided to relinquish his appointment. At any rate, I do think that in this purely House of Commons matter, in which the House of Commons should have a say and has always had some say in the selection, the House should have had time to think who should occupy this very important post.

My view, for what it is worth, is that with the composition of this House of Commons it is a good idea to divide these posts between two parties; one should be in the hands of the Conservative Party and one should be in the hands of the Labour Party. So far as I am concerned, I have found both these gentlemen efficient and impartial in the Chair, and I would be quite willing to sit under their Chairmanship when we go into Committee, but I think it would have been advisable, and it might have terminated a good deal of this discussion, if we had had a few days to think over this matter, if the Government had advised my friends below the Gangway, my friends opposite, and even a few of the Independent Members, and so prevented a good deal of waste of time.

Mr. Lipson: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Will you tell hon. Members of the House who have not been here sufficiently long to know the facts whether this is a Government or a House of Commons appointment?

Mr. Speaker: It is a House of Commons appointment.

Mr. Attlee: The Government have not departed from precedent in any way in this matter. These appointments are always made on the nomination of the Government. When new Governments are formed, one of the first things, when the House meets, when the Sessional Orders have been arranged, is the appointment of a Chairman of Ways and Means and a Deputy-Chairman.

Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is done on the Motion of the Government. Quite right, but in normal circumstances the Government represent a majority of the House of Commons. In a Coalition the case is completely different.

Mr. Attlee: There have been occasions when Governments have been in a minority in this House. I was in two of them myself. As a matter of fact, in 1924 I think the Chairman of Ways and Means was a member of the Labour Parry, and the Deputy-Chairman was taken from another party, I think the Liberal benches. I always thought it was a good plan myself that there should be variation. That does not alter the fact


that these are Motions without notice and have generally been made immediately on the relinquishment of the office, and it has not been the custom in the past that these names should be submitted to party meetings. I have had it notified to me that it was the intention of the Government to propose Mr. So-and-so, just before the Motion was made, on a number of occasions, but I assure the House there is no question of rushing the matter, and I think we should try to live up to the traditions of the House. I was very sorry that the hon. Member should have suggested that this was something of an elaborate bargaining, and a subject for spoils. I do not know why it should be when a Labour Member is appointed.
I quite agree that a Coalition is in a different position, but this is not the first time that there has been a Government composed of more than one party, and certainly there have been occasions on which Government nominations have been made when the Government have been in a minority in the House. But this is the first occasion on which I have known objection taken on these lines. The objection taken is on some grounds of personal dislike. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. and gallant Member has served now in the Chair as a Temporary Chairman of Committees and on the Chairman's Panel for seven years. I have not heard any complaint. He has been a member of various Committees. I think it is extremely regrettable that this line should have been taken, and I think the House would do much better to accept this Motion. I do not think it is right that there should be a lot of trouble over a matter like this, or a wrangle in war-time. I think that is far more likely to do harm to the House than anything else.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I have no complaint whatever to make as regards either of the names submitted. Indeed, I think that in common with most Members of this House my view would be that the services in the Chair of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) have met with universal approval. What I do complain about is that this essentially House of Commons matter should have been put suddenly before the House without the House of Commons as a whole having an

opportunity to consider the names which were to be submitted to them. It is most unfortunate that this Debate should have taken place, and it will not help either of the hon. and gallant Members when they come to fulfil their task in the Chair. It seems to me quite essential that whoever occupies that Chair should be persona grata with everybody in the House, and that therefore the Members of the House of Commons should be consulted by the Government in any way that is possible before a name is finally submitted to them. I must say that I think that had soundings been taken relative to the proposals which the Government were going to put forward, we should not have had this Debate. It is a House of Commons appointment, not a Government appointment. The House is selecting someone to sit in the Chair and rule over it during its Debates. There is no question of personalities, and personalities would not have come into it had some consideration been shown by the Government to all parties in the House before they brought the matter forward.

Earl Winterton: I feel great disagreement with most of my hon. Friends opposite. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would interrupt me and tell me on what occasion in the last 100 years there has been any consultation by any Government with their supporters or with anyone else as to who should be appointed Deputy-Speaker or nominated Deputy-Chairman of Committees. The whole thing has got into a completely false atmosphere. The hon. Member below the Gangway has made a speech which I can only describe as malicious. He boasted, as he constantly does, to the boredom of the House, that he is the one Member in the House who is independent and expresses independent views. On this occassion we are adopting the same course that the House has always adopted.

Mr. A. Bevan: I think the House will at least acquit me of having any very strong partisan views on matters of this sort. I have on a number of occasions tried to assert the rights of the House against the Executive, but I am bound to say that hon. Members' arguments to-day leave me dumbfounded. What is suggested—that the Government make nominations, that


names should be hawked round for days and weeks beforehand, upstairs in committees, either in our committee upstairs or the Conservative committee upstairs, so that when the nomination is made it will be made in the most unpleasant circumstances possible. The House is being consulted at the present time. The House does not exist upstairs in private committee. The House exists here. This is the only place where the House should be consulted, and the Motion before the House is a form of consulting the House itself. Any bargaining behind closed doors and secret meetings upstairs are no substitution for the consultation of the House. I suggest that a great deal of unnecessary prejudice has been imported into this matter, and I hope hon. Members will not pursue it any further.

Commander Agnew: I want to make it clear at the outset that I have no objection whatever to either of the two hon. and gallant Members who have been nominated to fill these offices. My objection is as to the method in which it has been done, as, differing from Crown appointments, these are House of Commons appointments. I feel that in future the procedure ought to be—and I say it with all respect to the traditions of this House—that the Patronage Secretary and two or three colleagues in a Coalition Government should put down, some days in advance, a Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. If any groups of hon. Members or parties in the House wish to discuss the matter, they can do so in their private meetings, and if any of the persons so nominated are likely to be persona non grata to strong bodies of opinion, then, of course, the usual representations could be made through the usual channels. I believe that if this suggestion were adopted in future, it would entirely remove the objection to the procedure in respect of the persons whose nominations have been brought forward to-day.

Mr. Muff: It is the Back Bench Members who are interested in this matter. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) undoubtedly stressed the opinion that he was independent, and straight away he said, "In the absence of the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, I wish to place the views

of that Committee"—or words to that effect—"before the House." Then he proceeded to say, knowing, as we all do, that he is the recipient and receiver of more gossip in the smoking room than there is at our ladies' sewing-party at my chapel, or to give the impression, that he was also spokesman for a select coterie of hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. I repudiate utterly that he is the custodian of the interests of the Labour Party, and, I deny that the hon. Member for Mossley has the right to speak on behalf of the 1922 Committee. The Deputy-Prime Minister has very properly reminded us that this House elected as Deputy-Chairman a former Member for South-West Hull, who was in opposition to the then party which is now in control of the Government. On previous occasions nominations have been made, and I well remember—though I was not a Member of the House, being too young—that Mr. Speaker Gully was elected Speaker of this House and that he was appointed actually with the consent of the Irish Nationalist Party, who were then in a position to give their vote and bring any party into the majority. The hon. Member for Mossley, the independent Member for Mossley, who is persona grata with all the Primrose dames in his constituency, comes down here, stresses his independence and that he is an incorruptible Robespierre, to speak to this House, and then he gives the show away by saying, "I object to any of the spoils being given to any one section of the House."
If there ever was a case where the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman earns whatever salary he receives, these two hon. Gentlemen, honourable in every sense of the word, earn every penny, and I wish we could give it to them tax free. I rise as one of the back bench Members who saw in the Press, at least three days before Christmas, that the right hon. and very highly respected Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) was laying down his office. We learned that fact. We are not going to take on the sins of "The Times" because they put a certain statement in their rag this morning, but even back bench Members have known that certain appointments were going to be made. I hope that we in this honourable House will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has put it, be true to our traditions and to the men who are


going to sit in that Chair when we discuss the grievances of our constituents and try to remedy them, and that we shall repudiate the Amendment standing in the name of the very independent Member for Mossley.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I wonder whether I might address a few observations to the House on this subject and then make an appeal to them. There has obviously been some quite genuine misunderstanding about precedents in this matter. My noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) is quite right. I have looked them up carefully, and there is absolutely no precedent for notice being given, or consultation, beforehand. I fully understood my hon. Friend's reason, but it has never, in fact, been done. On every occasion in the last century a Motion has been put down by the Government, and all the precedents I can find—I speak subject to correction—are that on the day when the Chairman of Ways and Means resigns or retires a new Chairman and Deputy-Chairman are appointed on that day. As a matter of fact, it was owing to the advice I gave to the Prime Minister that we did not take both things yesterday. I suggested that it would be better to have the resignation one day and appointments the next. I think that is the first time that even that has been done. I wanted to make that plain to the House, because quite obviously there has been some misunderstanding.

Mr. Hopkinson: When my right hon. Friend says there is no official notice given, I know for an actual fact, from my own experience, that on every similar occasion the whole thing has been unofficially discussed and the powers that be have obtained the opinion of the House as far as they could before bringing their selection forward. As a matter of fact, the Deputy-Prime Minister told me in conversation that this particular selection had the unanmious support of the Labour Party.

Mr. Stephen: I think part of the trouble has arisen from a confusion between the appointment of Speaker and the appointment of Chairman. With regard to the appointment of Speaker, generally there are joint consultations,

but with regard to Chairmen no consultations ever take place.

Mr. Eden: That is exactly the position. I have been into this with great care. That is the procedure which has always been followed. Almost always appointments have been made on the first day of Parliament, so that consultations would not have been possible. Those are the precedents, and we have followed them absolutely. I do not regard ourselves as being guilty in any way or of being discourteous to the House in a matter of this kind. It has been agreed by all recent speakers that nobody wishes to introduce personal matters into these appointments. If this be so, in order to give the House the best chance of working smoothly, may I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Hopkinson: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the previous Question. I should explain, however, that some of the things said of me in this discussion have been demonstrably untrue, and I should have raised objection to them if it had not meant wasting time. However, in view of what has been said, and because it is now practically impossible to get a large-scale vote of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the previous Question in the hope that, having moved it, it will have done some good.

Previous Question, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown be the Chairman of Ways and Means and that Major James Milner be the Deputy-Chairman.

SECRET SESSION

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

[The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]